There is a certain vulnerability required in having a presence online. So much of our discourse takes place online now, forever enshrining our words and pictures in a searchable database, that it is difficult not to think about the permanence of it all. I imagine most of us were on social media like Facebook and Twitter during our awkward middle school years, and possibly before, leaving us with cringey pictures and posts from a time that we might like to forget. But, of course, that is a rather benign example. The situation becomes more serious as we grow up. Now, many of our social media profiles have become a space for us to share our political positions. This may be a factor of increasingly polarized times, as many people have concluded, but it is also a result of growing up. We have entered the age where we are able to vote and engage in political discourse that we may not have been ready for before. Our political views are beginning to emerge. The problem, of course, comes when we evolve beyond those views.

I sometimes find myself hesitate before I post on social media because I am hyper-aware of the permanent nature of everything online. I remember the ways that writings, posts, songs and videos can be dredged up later in life, oftentimes in an attempt to embarrass or discredit someone. This is a common practice during elections, as we have seen with a number of candidates over the years. These old writings can become the story of the week during a long campaign season, forcing a candidate to grapple with something that they wrote years, sometimes decades, ago.

I am not saying that this practice is inappropriate or should be stopped; in fact I think it is important that those running for public office are fully accountable to their prospective constituents when it comes to their record. That does not mean, however, that we should automatically discount someone as disingenuous if their views are different now from those that they held years ago. We should recognize that people and their beliefs are not static, and allow room for growth.

Of course, as with anything, there are caveats. Firstly, people should not say anything just to say something. It is important that we are all aware of the limits of our knowledge, and that we let those limits inform our decisions to share, or not share, our opinions. People also have to be willing to acknowledge that their views have progressed, rather than simply dismiss their previous views as misrepresented or out of context when asked about them. A dismissive response means that the person has either not changed or will not accept that they have. It is also necessary to demonstrate with action that there has been a change. People can say anything, and we certainly should listen to them, but there is merit to heavy skepticism when there is no evidence that they have actually had a change in their beliefs.

In an appropriate closing to this piece, I will say that my own views are not particularly crystallized on this issue. I am still grappling with exactly what the boundaries are of accepting someone’s professed belief change, and frankly, it is quite possible that I may come to disagree with myself in the future. But, that is okay. In fact, I think it may be the point of education.